Mother-of-three Hilary is facing a $38,000 bill for overpayment of Working for Families credits after being caught out in the same way as other parents whose stories RNZ has covered recently.
The women had all inadvertently declared they did not have a partner for Working for Families purposes, while going through the process of registering the birth of their children.
Megan Hunt and Jess Henwood both said they missed or misread the box that they were required to tick to say they had a partner.
Hilary, who did not want her last name used, said the situation was the same for her when she registered the birth of her son during the April 2020 Covid lockdown.
“A time of immense stress and worry, with two school-aged children at home, a newborn, and a husband who was an essential worker, naturally I wasn’t in a headspace to ensure I ticked every small box and fine print when I registered my son’s birth online via the DIA website.”
The mother-of-three faces a $38,000 bill after inadvertently declaring she did not have a partner for Working for Families purposes. Photo / RNZ
When she applied for the childcare subsidy scheme Family Boost in September, she had a phone call from Inland Revenue asking about her husband.
“I confirmed we have been married 17 years, living together and raising our three children as per the information supplied to IRD open and honestly, as I have nothing to hide.
“The tone of the conversation then took a very accusatory tone, I was told that because of my failure to declare my relationship with my husband when I applied for WFF in 2020, I had been potentially overpaid and was liable to pay back what I had ‘fraudulently claimed’.
“IRD were unable to clearly and succinctly explain to me how this had occurred, apparently because of the information supplied by DIA.
“I explained that I had never deliberately not disclosed my relationship status in order to claim benefits that I was not entitled to, I explained that my husband’s name is clearly on our son’s birth certificate and how did this information not flow through to IRD?”
She said she was referred back to letters from 2020 that said it was the customer’s responsibility to declare information.
“I questioned how can I be liable for a failure to disclose information which I thought I had already declared, again I was referred to the original application and letters received, which I was unable to review myself. The phone call ended with the IRD rep stating that they would open an investigation and get back to me.”
She said she then received a number of emails about the debt. Including penalties and interest, it amounted to $38,329.15. Of that, she was told almost $32,500 was due within two weeks.
“In 24 hours I had gone from being unaware of any potential issue to being over $38,000 owing to IRD with no clear explanation as to how this had happened and no recourse.
“Subsequent calls to the IRD left me none the wiser as to how to work to rectify the situation, I had no name or contact apart from the 0800 number and whomever answered to discuss this with, and I was advised by professionals I sought advice from that I was on a hiding to nothing and to either apply for a hardship review – unlikely to achieve anything apart from delay the matter – or pay the bill.
“I am angry that this has obviously happened to other people. I am angry that at no time the impact to my family, my mental health, or my financial status and stability of these punitive actions were taken into account or considered by IRD.
“Angry that the good faith I had in openly answering those initial questions, came back to literally bite me and I was not afforded the same courtesy in return.”
She said it had been devastating.
“The swiftness from answering of one phone call to have such a hefty bill in such a short space of time, the only way I can describe it is gutting. What they were demanding was half of what I make in a year, how could I come up with that in two weeks and less than a month before Christmas?”
Inland Revenue said it is aware of the issue but only a small number of people had been affected.
People who are working through the birth registration process need to tick “no” to have it recorded that they do not have a partner living with them.
Inland Revenue said registering the father’s details on the birth certificate was not sufficient because it did not necessarily mean that the parents were in a relationship or living together.
